Figuring out what the code is doing is not the hard part. Documenting the reason you want it to do that (domain knowledge) is the hard part.
Agreed.
And sometimes code is not the right medium for communicating domain knowledge. For example, if you are writing code the does some geometric calculations, with lot of trigonometry, etc. Even with clear variable names, it can be hard to decipher without a generous comment or splitting it up into functions with verbose names. Sometimes you really just want a picture of what’s happening, in SVG format, embedded into the function documentation HTML.
TempleOS: Hold my communion wine
Yeah. I advocate for self explanatory code, but I definitely don’t frown upon comments. Comments are super useful but soooo overused. I have coworkers that aren’t that great that would definitely comment on the most basic if statements. That’s why we have to push self explanatory code, because some beginners think they need to say:
//prints to the console console.log("hello world");I think by my logic, comments are kind of an advanced level concept, lol. Like you shouldn’t really start using comments often until you’re writing some pretty complex code, or using a giant codebase.
Comments are super useful but soooo overused
I think overusing comments is a non-issue. I’d rather have over-commented code that doesn’t need it, over undocumented code without comments that needs them. If this over-commenting causes some comments to be out of date, those instances should hopefully be obvious from the code itself or the other comments and easily fixed.
I understand what you’re saying and I mostly agree, but those few instances where a line of code is only slightly different and the comment is the same, can really be confusing.
Sometimes when I don’t leave comments like that, I get review comments asking what the line does. Code like
ThisMethodInitsTheService()with comments like “what does this do?” in the review.So now I comment a lot. Apparently reading code is hard for some people, even code that tells you exactly what it does in very simple terms.
Fair. I guess in this case, it’s a manner of gauging who you’re working with. I’d much rather answer a question once in a while than over-comment (since refactors often make comments worthless and they’re so easy to miss…), but if it’s a regular occurrence, yeah it would get on my nerves. Read the fuckin name of the function! Or better yet go check out what the function does!
Worse, refactors make comments wrong. And there is nothing more annoying then having the comment conflict with the code. Which is right? Is it a bug or did someone just forget to update the comments… The latter is far more common.
Comments that just repeat the code mean you now have two places to update and keep in sync - a pointless waste of time and confusion.
Yes- exactly, they make comments wrong. But comments aren’t always a waste of time, like in legacy code, or just in general code that isn’t gonna change (mathematical equations too)
Comments are not always a waste of time, but comments that repeat or tell you what the code is doing (rather than why) are a waste. For legacy code you generally don’t have comments anyway and the code is hard to read/understand.
But if you can understand the code enough to write a comment you can likely refactor the code to just make it more readable to start with.
For code that does not change generally does not need to be read much so does not need comments to describe what it is doing. And again, if you understand it enough to write a comment to explain what it is doing you can refactor it to be readable to begin with. Even for mathematical equations I would either expect the reader to be able to read them or link to documentation that describes what it is in much more detail to name the function enough that the reader can look it up to understand the principals behind it.
I can’t recall the exact change but a coworker did something five years very intentionally. The comments, the commit and everything described what they did but not why.
I think it was with side effects: true and I fixed a certain way we bundled things and I believe that could have solved the issue but I don’t know for sure :/
Why the
password.trim()? Silently removing parts of the password can lead to dangerous bugs and tells me the developer didn’t peoperly consider how to sanitize input.I remember once my password for a particular organization had a space at the end. I could log in to all LDAP-connected applications, except for one that would insist my password was wrong. A
trim()or similar was likely the culprit.Another favorite of mine is truncating the password to a certain length w/o informing the user.
Saving the password truncates but validation doesn’t. So it just fails every time you try to log in with no explanation. The number of times I have seen this in a production website is too damn high.
The password needs to be 8 letters long and may only contain the alphabet. Also we don’t tell you this requirement or tell you that setting the password went wrong. We just lock you out.
Thanks for the tip. password.trim() can indeed be problematic. I just removed that line.
The reason for leaving in the
password.trim()would be one of the few things that I would ever document with a comment.
A quick glance and this seemed nothing to do with self documenting code and everything to do with the flaws when code isn’t strictly typed.
Code before:
async function createUser(user) { if (!validateUserInput(user)) { throw new Error('u105'); } const rules = [/[a-z]{1,}/, /[A-Z]{1,}/, /[0-9]{1,}/, /\W{1,}/]; if (user.password.length >= 8 && rules.every((rule) => rule.test(user.password))) { if (await userService.getUserByEmail(user.email)) { throw new Error('u212'); } } else { throw new Error('u201'); } user.password = await hashPassword(user.password); return userService.create(user); }Here’s how I would refac it for my personal readability. I would certainly introduce class types for some concern structuring and not dangling functions, but that’d be the next step and I’m also not too familiar with TypeScript differences to JavaScript.
const passwordRules = [/[a-z]{1,}/, /[A-Z]{1,}/, /[0-9]{1,}/, /\W{1,}/] function validatePassword(plainPassword) => plainPassword.length >= 8 && passwordRules.every((rule) => rule.test(plainPassword)) async function userExists(email) => await userService.getUserByEmail(user.email) async function createUser(user) { // What is validateUserInput? Why does it not validate the password? if (!validateUserInput(user)) throw new Error('u105') // Why do we check for password before email? I would expect the other way around. if (!validatePassword(user.password)) throw new Error('u201') if (!userExists(user.email)) throw new Error('u212') const hashedPassword = await hashPassword(user.password) return userService.create({ email: user.email, hashedPassword: hashedPassword }); }Noteworthy:
- Contrary to most JS code, [for independent/new code] I use the non-semicolon-ending style following JavaScript Standard Style - see their no semicolons rule with reasoning; I don’t actually know whether that’s even valid TypeScript, I just fell back into JS
- I use oneliners for simple check-error-early-returns
- I commented what was confusing to me
- I do things like this to fully understand code even if in the end I revert it and whether I implement a fix or not. Committing refacs is also a big part of what I do, but it’s not always feasible.
- I made the different interface to userService.create (a different kind of user object) explicit
- I named the parameter in validatePassword plainPasswort to make the expectation clear, and in the createUser function more clearly and obviously differentiate between “the passwords”/what
passwordis. (In C# I would use a param label on callvalidatePassword(plainPassword: user.password)which would make the interface expectation and label transformation from interface to logic clear.
Structurally, it’s not that different from the post suggestion. But it doesn’t truth-able value interpretation, and it goes a bit further.






